Quote:
Originally Posted by RossDagley
My insurance is inflated because of those two speeding convictions. Absolutely. Statistically however, I'm a FAR better risk than a 17/18 year old. Surely you're not attempting to contradict that? If so - you might want to have a word with the researchers  |
On that basis - women drivers insurance
should be 20x as much because they are terrible drivers? Or Asian drivers because they break most laws? What would happen if insurance companies said that? Do you think they would get away with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RossDagley
Would you consider it unjust that a house in a flood risk area should pay the same as a house on a hill for the same level of flood cover? Of course not. Statistically the house thats likely to flood should pay more for its cover, as it's more likely to be required.
|
You have the choice to buy a house in a flood risk area - you have no choice in declaring your age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RossDagley
You're fighting a losing battle. As much as you may think you have the moral high ground by finding what you consider to be a loophole in the system, the law says otherwise. If I drive drunk and don't get caught, it doesn't make it any less illegal.
|
If this was a legal loophole - it
would and
could easily be stopped if it was illegal. As I say, there is no definition of a "main" driver, and been a named driver on a policy means that you are, by law, legally insured to drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RossDagley
If I drive drunk and don't get caught, it doesn't make it any less illegal.
|
Drink Driving is a Criminal offence (contrary to Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) therefore it is illegal.
That said, in an ideal world, with realistically priced insurance everyone should have a policy in their own name. If the FSA stepped in and did something about it, im sure everyone would.